Basu: U.S. strike at Syria presents too great a risk

Aug. 31, 2013

Written by

An NBC poll released Friday showed the nation split on whether to launch a military strike on Syria. Half supported limited use of cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships, and half rejected any attacks.

But a majority, 58 percent, said chemical weapons use by any country violates a ďred lineĒ and demands a significant U.S. response, including possible military action.

Thatís hardly surprising. Itís human to ache with outrage and empathy every time an image is broadcast of children suffering from chemical burns believed to have been inflicted by Syriaís army.

If we see ourselves as part of a broader world community, there is a sense of personal responsibility to support others in the face of injustice or oppression. And the main framework for action we know is that of war.

Iíve felt that way myself, dissatisfied by arguments that either focus on the ugliness of war in the abstract without addressing Syriansí situation or claim it doesnít affect us directly and we shouldnít squander our resources on it.

But the problem with deciding a course of action based on visceral reactions to heart-rending images is that itís not necessarily supported by history or grounded in facts.

It prevents us from exercising necessary skepticism about any possible ulterior motives by our own government. It causes us to forget even recent history, which shows just how wrong we can go with foreign military interventions launched in the name of stopping dictators with mass weapons.

President Obama has offered various justifications for wanting to attack Syria, but even he hasnít claimed that would necessarily prevent further attacks.

It would be a warning shot, he said, not aimed at regime change but to send a signal to President Bashar Assad. Officials have said the assaults would last a day or two and be aimed at the Syrian military units believed to have carried out chemical attacks.

But sending a signal isnít worth the risks.

This situation is too reminiscent of Iraq, which was also initially promoted as a quick strike, in that case to take out weapons of mass destruction, which Americans were assured ó wrongly ó that Saddam Hussein had.

And if the goal now is protecting Syrian lives, the metrics from Iraq donít favor an attack. In our 10 years there, 125,000 civilians have been killed, including 862 in August alone, according to Iraq Body Count, which collects data from media, hospital and nongovernmental organizationsí reports.

Secretary of State John Kerry says there is compelling evidence of the Syrian government being behind chemical weapons attacks on Aug. 21 that killed 1,429. Obama has said such weapons could be aimed at us next. But he has yet to convince Congress or make a case for circumventing the War Powers Act, which requires that body to declare war. And even in the face of a ďnoĒ vote from Britainís Parliament, heís ready to go it alone ó without the support of NATO or the Arab League, which has also accused Syria of using chemical weapons.

Whatever Obamaís real objectives are, wading into the midst of a complicated situation like this seldom turns out well.

In backing Egyptís pro-democracy protesters in the face of massacres in Tahrir Square, we helped topple President Hosni Mubarak and pave the way to his replacement by Islamist President Mohamed Morsi. Then he got edged out by the military, while over 1,000 of his supporters recently got massacred.

For us to weaken Assad or help pave the way for his ouster would inevitably empower al-Qaida. Too many times in the past, weíve ended up supporting the wrong people, and our actions have backfired.

In Iraq, toppling Saddam opened Iraqís doors to al-Qaida, which wasnít there before. In Afghanistan, we backed the mujahedeen in our proxy war against the Soviet Union, paving the way for the Taliban takeover. In both cases, our actions ultimately propelled us into much bigger wars.

That could happen again. Moreover, since Britainís Parliament has voted against taking part in an attack, if the United States ends up going it alone, it would feed the impression in the Middle East of a world bully ever ready to take up arms against Muslim nations.

It could also provoke other powers like China and Russia to get involved on Assadís side. For all we know, Assad wants to provoke a war with us.

No, we donít need more war. In the face of compelling evidence, the United Nations has the power to ban arms shipments to Syria, send in human rights monitors and share its evidence with the International Criminal Court for prosecution.

As heinous as the atrocities are, by launching attacks we risk making them worse.